Intel Core i5 4690K  vs AMD FX 8350 

Eh you are wrong I have a 4690k and an 8350 and the Intel is better in every single way. Even though the 8350 has 8 cores it is not a true 8 core chip and does not perform as such. Also the IPC is so totally pathetic that it negates pretty much any other positives this chip has.

This comparison is very odd. They say the 4690K typically uses about 72 watts, whereas the FX-8350 typically uses about 160 watts. So they're assuming an insane overclock on the FX-8350, and a substantial underclock on the 4690K. They also appear to give huge props to the 4690K for its integrated graphics, which makes no sense. How many people with the 4690K run the integrated graphics? In terms of real-world performance, these CPUs are very evenly matched; some contests will go to the 4690K and others will go to the FX-8350. Anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

I would say that it depends on what you wanna do. Me for example wanted to build a computer for Arma 3, and for that reason i choose the i5 instead of the FX. But at the same time, i would say that AMD makes generally good CPU, but i would prefer i5 when it comes to Arma 3, because of more power from a single core. But if you're not gonna play CPU heavy games, i would go with a AMD.

I'm glad that you found it informative!

Thank you, that was a very educationed response

Right, but you need to be very careful with the definition of "core": Ever since the introduction of the Pentium, we've come to expect two integer cores, or ALUs, and one FPU. This means that every processor advertised as a single-core since then would typically have two ALUs, and one FPU, as a grand total. A dual-core CPU would be exactly twice of both; four ALUs, and two FPUs, and four times this for quad, and so on, so fourth. A Bulldozer processor, however, has a different definition: per module, you get one FPU, and two integer clusters, which each have two ALUs. AMD advertises their processors as having the amount of cores as there are a pair of ALUs. As such, the definition of "core" has changed, and so has the performance, due to the lack of FPUs (see the Intel 80486SX vs. the DX) Alas, people are hardly aware of this, many even refuting it. Carefully studying the Bulldozer block diagrams is what reveals the truth behind what I state here. Ultimately, this just means that AMD Bulldozer processors' advertised core counts is a totally different story than any other processor ever made, assuming that absolutely zero others are made the same.

It has two compute cores in each modules, it's literally not hyper threading because each core acts independently without having another thread but it is packaged in the module so the pipeline is garbage.

at the end, both are the same sh*t. So, buy what your need.

Isn't bad, they are good, I recommended FX 8350 to a friend and it runs pretty well. Just it has more power consumption (Bill), at the end is noticeable.

I own a FX 8350 with stock cooler, overclocked to 4.4 Ghz without even touching the voltage. The temps are 38 to 51 in full load(measured with AIDA64 not Core temp) I'm running a Minecraft server with 41 players, let youtube play music, talk on Skype and eventually share screens, and to top it all up i also play WOT at 60 fps and never drops below 51 fps. I dont have AMD mobo, now tell, which part of the FX 8350 is bad ? And Joseph Schultz the FX 8350 is a 8 core cpu, 2 cores in a module, and the FX 8350 has 4 modules. If you really want to test you intel CPU whatever it is i5 4690k or even i7 4790k against my FX 8350 i will be glad to run a rendering test with you whenever you like my friend. Oh and my electric bill is just fine :)

Really it all depends on what you want. Intel is far superior in workstations and high-end gaming rigs. AMD offers no hyperthreading options, just more cores that equal an i5 in performance. AMD has it's sweet spot in low-end gaming rigs and HTPC's with their APU's. Simply, put, they have their weaknesses, AMD being performance and Intel being price.

This very website does say : Much lower annual home energy cost 21.2 $/year vs 56.1 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost. It's not 88$ / year, but over 4 years, that's about 140$ difference. Now it will vary depending where you live, but those figures kind of make sense...

That's certainly right, yes, you don't want to buy a low-budget board for overclocking. The thing is, you buy a good board and CPU cooler for overclocking with getting more performance for your money in mind, even though you wind up just spending more money to begin with. Since the more you're wanting to overclock, the lesser of a chance it'll work, overclocking may not even be worth investing in to start with. A nice example: the G3258 can overclock nicely, even on the stock cooler, but it still won't net you the gains that even a locked i5 has the potential to bring. The good side of this is that it doesn't really cost anything extra to overclock a G3258, since it's entirely possible on the stock cooler (thanks to Intel for including the copper-core stock cooler with that CPU), and since a motherboard to OC it isn't expensive (the ASRock H97 Anniversary is absolutely sufficient, despite having a H-series chipset). That's the way overclocking should be; not costing any more, thus letting you get more for your money...while AMDs have you choking more money on a cooler & motherboard, which isn't value. AMDs already even have you wanting a cooler if you're running stock! If one insists, sure that's fine, but noone should play like AMDs are better value when they actually aren't, especially when it's to the point that an overclocking-locked Intel platform still winds up outperforming them, quite possibly for less total cost.

You're right, but still it was a good budget CPU if all you did was gaming (not anymore now, though, more like 2 or more year ago), I guess 6300 was best bang for buck if all you did was gaming. Shouldn't use low budget boards anyway if you plan to buy a chip for overclocking. But intel is a much better value, I hate my poor ass for not being able to upgrade for at least 6 more months :(. Still on my shit 8350

Lol 88.00 dollar extra a year, dude. You live with your parents I assume. You maybe (I don't feel like doing math so I estimate) pay like 10 dollars more per year if you go amd. What's 10 dollar in a fucking year.. 0.833 cents extra a month, shoot me now please. And that even depends how much you use your system. 15 dollars according to JayzTwoCents, but I guess that depends on where you live. Here electricity is really cheap, dunno for murica.

omg these scores are identical "almost" what program in 2015 uses one single core??? dude no one cares about you fan boys if you can get an i5 with a mobo cheaper than amd with mobo then do it for the love of god everyone shut up!

You are absolutely right my friend. Not to mention that you need much more better cooling to keep an AMD cpu at reasonable temperatures. Needing much more better cooling costs money and all these things pile up and you can even get to a higher price per total choosing AMD instead of Intel.

:)

Well that's actually my setup. Look, i also took a pic after posting this comment. And im sorry if i expressed my self not very well, but im not english native. I means, all this time i tryed to say ''i do own this setup'' if that the correct sentence. I thought ''have'' is when you have something, and ''had'', when you don't have it anymore. Understand? I still learning English. Cheers. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2edd22bf7f2e5dd437b35fea3be831ca0533f826429e545d7f8fc345ed0d5a7b.jpg

Here you go dude, you did say you had a 4690k:)

Ericson bob bear 8 days ago You most be living under a bridge or all of AMD users do. Im not rich and i have this setup, with an i5 4690K. Here the specs: »Case: Corsair Carbide 400R »MB: ASUS Z97-A USB 3.1 »CPU: Intel® Core™ i5 4690K »RAM: 4x4 (16GB) Kingston HyperX Fury 1866 »SSD: Samsung 850 Evo 120GB »HDD: WD Caviar Blue 1TB »GPU: 2x GTX 960 4GB FTW in SLI »PSU: Corsair RM650 As you can see, you don't need to be rich to have this, just work and you'll get all you want. You clearly said you had a 4690k dude.. That is a strait copy and paste and here is the link to your comments, scroll down and you will see where you commented that you have a 4690k.. You also provided a picture of your rig.. https://disqus.com/by/disqus_wEMA3n8xgi/?utm_source=reply&utm_medium=email&utm_content=comment_author Why would you lie about your rig? The Internet is a very small place mate and eventually all of your lies will surface.. Now you have no credibility so how would you know if AMD processors are crap? By the looks of it you don't even own a decent computer, I was being very respectful to you in regards to our conversation was I not? Look I'm not laughing at you mate, not at all but next time just be honest and please don't bash on hardware that you really have no clue about.. I speak from personal experience and every bit of hardware I comment about I have owned or do own..

I've never said i had a 4690K. Show me where i did...

So you own a 4690k? Because in other posts you said you had a 4690k? You expressed your opinion and I expressed mine..

Well, by the time im running a 4690K on my machine. But look, i don't hate AMD, and i know isnt bad at all, it's a good brand on GPU and CPU side. I alwasy recommend it to people with low budget who asks for good performance at a lower price. I just always said, if you want the best performance, and longlasting performance, go for Intel, but if you have a low budget, and want a decent performance, go for AMD. Just that.

Logan is honest and his review is indicative of the performance of FX series processors.. Most reviewers have bias opinions towards AMD hardware but in my experience AMD's FX series aren't that bad at all, same could be said to you? Just because Digital Storm and Foundry have bad reviews on FX series processors doesn't mean they are bad, if they were so bad I wouldn't recommend them and I most certainly wouldn't have bought one my self.. I do allot of video conversion and rendering and my FX9370 does an excellent job, I can convert a large video file and game at the same time.. My 5820k isn't that much quicker at converting a large video file, what's a couple of minutes at the end of the day.. I have been gaming on PC since the Olivetti M24 and I have allot of experience in computers, the FX series processors aren't that bad.. Why do you take it so personal and why are you so angry about it? Have you ever owned an FX series CPU? Have you ever owned a high end Intel cpu?